•  "Koye's advocacy is very strong and he gives pragmatic advice." (Chambers UK, 2026)
• "Koye is a future star." (Legal 500, 2026)
• "He delivers his arguments effectively before even the most experienced tribunals." (Chambers UK, 2025)
• "Koye is really bright and really gets to grips with complex legal issues." (Chambers UK, 2025)
• "He's extremely sharp, very good on advisory pieces and offers an excellent vision of how a case can play out." (Chambers UK, 2025)
• "Koye has great presence, is fantastic at building a rapport with the tribunal which enables him to present the case more effectively and has an authoritative and analytical style of oral advocacy." (Legal 500, 2025)
• "Koye is unflappable. His advice is always clear and concise. He is extremely good on his feet and can hold his own against any KC." (Legal 500, 2025)
• "Technically brilliant, commercially focussed and a forceful advocate. Koye is not daunted by seemingly difficult cases, he is creative with legal arguments and works hard and quick." (Legal 500, 2024)
• "Koye provides excellent advocacy and a clear head, as well as very strong attention to detail." (Legal 500, 2024)
• "One of the most talented aviation specialist barristers and a go-to barrister on aviation insurance and crash work." (Legal 500, 2024)
• “Koye has a remarkable ability to grasp the essence of a case and formulate strategy and argument.” (Chambers UK, 2024)
• “He is calm, considered and assured.” (Chambers UK, 2024)
• "Koye is down to earth, his drafting is exceptional and he is very commercially minded." (Chambers UK, 2023)
• "He was very good telling us the reality of what was likely to happen. He delivered his advocacy very well." (Chambers UK, 2023)
• "Koye is an extremely impressive junior. He combines charisma and charm with incisive ferocity, so when called upon he can deliver a critical hit with style, aplomb, and finesse." (Legal 500, 2023)
• "Koye has very considerable intellectual and technical skills. He is extremely diligent and hard-working." (Legal 500, 2023)
• "Very strong in terms of turn-around and accuracy, he is responsive, helpful and good with clients." (Legal 500, 2023)
• "A commanding court room presence, unflappable demeanour and a good legal mind." (Legal 500, 2023)
• "A towering yet calm presence, Koye has judgement beyond his years and is a true force to be reckoned with. A superstar at the aviation Bar: he is fantastic, really talented, super clever, great with clients, and a joy to work with." (Legal 500, 2022)
• "He has great presence and confidence and the ability to get very quickly to the heart of a matter, focus on the core issues of importance, and deal with them effectively and intelligently." (Legal 500, 2022)
• “Koye is fantastic. He is commercial and pragmatic. He has the ability to grasp fine detail quickly.” (Chambers UK, 2022)
• "Hardworking and pleasant to deal with, he is exceptionally strong in grasping the legal points in a case and providing timely, commercial advice." (Legal 500, 2022)
• "He has a tenacious work ethic and nuanced ability to articulate finer points of law in the manner one would expect of a top-level junior counsel." (Legal 500, 2021)
• "A formidable presence and an agile mind - on track to greatness." (Legal 500, 2021)
• "He is unflappable and calm under fire." (Legal 500, 2020)
• "He provides thorough and well-reasoned advice and responds quickly." (Legal 500, 2020)
• "He is a rising star; a good public speaker and very personable with clients." (Legal 500, 2019)

Koye regularly works on large commercial disputes, in both arbitration and Court. He also frequently advises on most areas of private domestic law (including, contract, tort, unjust enrichment, and equity) as well as on issues of private international law.

Examples of the wide range of cases that Koye is and has been involved in:

• Okuashvili v Ivanishvili and ors [2025] EWHC 829 (Ch): Koye represented a Georgian bank, JSC TBC Bank, and its English publicly traded holding company, which were two of five defendants (including former Prime Minister of Georgia, Mr Bidzina Ivanishvili) accused of involvement in a conspiracy against a Georgian businessman, Mr Zaza Okuashvili.
• High Court injunction proceedings in support of a confidential arbitration (2025) (with Robert Thomas KC): Koye acted on behalf of a large oil and gas multinational in respect of injunction proceedings arising out of the proposed sale of its participating interest in certain oil fields to a third-party buyer, in circumstances where the multinational’s partner in the oil fields had sought to avail itself of its pre-emption rights under the relevant joint operating agreements.
• RMK Maritime (Europe) Ltd and another v CMB. Tech NV (2025) (with Robert Thomas KC): Koye is instructed on behalf of NYSE and Euronext Brussels listed CMB. Tech NV, in respect of proceedings commenced against it by its financial advisors in its merger with another NYSE listed company, Gener8. The case raises important questions including the extent to which a claim in unjust enrichment is available where there is a subsisting contract between the parties.
• ADM International SARL v. Golden Shine NZ Limited (with Simon Rainey KC): Koye is instructed on behalf of a guarantor in a dispute that raises questions concerning the rule in Holme v Brunskill – i.e., whether the guarantor continues to be liable for purported extensions of the underlying contract made without the guarantor’s knowledge.
• Credit Suisse AG v HRH Prince Fahad Bin Sultan Bin Abdulaziz Al Saud and ors  [2023] EWHC 809 (Comm) (with Guy Blackwood QC): Koye acted on behalf of Credit Suisse in proceedings to enforce certain loan facility agreements for the ultimate benefit of HRH Prince Fahad Bin Sultan Bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, along with personal guarantees and associated security.
• HC Trading Malta Ltd v K.I. (International) Ltd [2022] EWHC 1387 (Comm) (with Jeremy Richmond QC): Koye acted for an Indian incorporated entity sued in England in respect of a contract for the sale and purchase of non-coking coal of South African origin. Koye acted in proceedings seeking to challenge the English Court’s jurisdiction to hear the claim.
• Selevision Saudi Co v BeIN Media Group LLC [2021] EWHC 2802 (Comm) (with Jeremy Richmond QC): Koye acted for Selevision Saudi Co in successfully enforcing a New York Convention arbitration award in England, and in particular, resisting an attempt by BeIN Media to introduce a substantial counterclaim to Selevision’s arbitration claim form by which it sought to enforce the award.
• A London-seated LCIA arbitration on behalf of a large insurance company based in a GCC state against one of the world’s largest independent energy and commodities companies concerning a call on an on-demand guarantee.  

Koye’s shipping work encompasses all types of charterparty, bill of lading, and shipbuilding disputes. It includes advisory and advocacy work in both arbitration and Court proceedings. Koye has particular experience in advising on sanctions issues arising in the shipping context, including both Iranian sanctions and Russian sanctions in the context of shipping disputes.

Some of Koye’s recent and ongoing cases that are illustrative of his general shipping practice include:

• MT ‘SONGA PRIDE’ – Koye is instructed on behalf of the owners of a chemical tanker in a dispute arising out of the termination of a bareboat charter by the charterer pursuant to the termination provisions of BARECON 2001. Koye has acted on behalf of the owners in the ensuing LMAA arbitration as well as appeals on a point of law in the High Court and Court of Appeal. The case raises an important question of the correct interpretation of the repossession provisions in Clause 29 of BARECON 2001.
• GTLK Malta Four Limited v. Pola Maritime Limited and others (with Robert Thomas KC)- Koye is instructed on behalf of the owner of seven vessels that were bareboat chartered to the same charterer under seven separate charters. The dispute arises between the owners and the guarantors of the charterer’s obligations under the bareboat charters, and raises questions concerning the correct interpretation of the quiet possession warranty in the bareboat charters, and whether US, EU and UK sanctions affecting the owner of the vessels had the effect of frustrating the charterparties.
• Two LMAA arbitrations heard concurrently: Koye is instructed on behalf of the buyers of two crude/product oil tankers in two concurrent arbitrations against the builder of the tankers. The central question in both references concerns the extent to which the buyers are entitled to recoup the value of the instalments actually paid in circumstances where the builder lawfully terminated the sale contracts successfully resold the vessels to a third party for sums exceeding the contractual price.
• The Solomon Trader [2024] EWHC 1813 (Comm) (with John Passmore KC): Koye acted on behalf of charterers’ P&I insurers in a dispute arising out of the well-publicised grounding the SOLOMON TRADER in the Solomon Islands in 2019. The dispute addressed the extent to which the P&I insurers could rely on the ‘pay to be paid’ clause in the P&I insurance policy as a defence to a claim by the vessel’s owners pursuant to Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Act 2010.
• An LMAA arbitration (with Yash Kulkarni QC): Koye acted on behalf of a state-owned oil trading company against whom the owners of an oil tanker sought declarations and damages arising out of the shipment of allegedly sanctioned crude oil. In particular, the owners sought declarations to the effect that they were entitled to sail to the US carrying the crude oil worth c. US$100m at the direction of the US authorities.
• An LMAA arbitration: Koye was instructed as sole counsel in proceedings concerning the contamination of jet fuel destined for military use. Koye is instructed as sole counsel on behalf of charterers.
• Harren and Partners Schiffahrts Gmbh & Co Kg Ms Patea v Vitol S.A: Koye was instructed as sole counsel in a dangerous cargo dispute in Commercial Court proceedings arising out of the carriage of a cargo of slurry from Fawley, UK to Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
• A dispute arising under a ship management agreement whereby sums collected by the ship’s commercial managers for the ship owners were the subject of a levy on all Cypriot bank deposits above €100,000 as a result of the 2012/2013 Cypriot banking crisis.
• Acting for a Chinese shipyard in two consolidated arbitration proceedings concerning the design and manufacture of two offshore jack up rigs (led by Simon Croall QC and Peter Stevenson).
• Acting on behalf of a German shipyard in arbitration proceedings arising out alleged defects in the HVAC system of a luxury superyacht (led by Simon Rainey QC).
   

Koye has substantial experience in respect of energy disputes, having spent two years working for the litigation team of one of the major energy multinationals. Koye has advised on various oil and gas related issues, including:

• Historical misallocation of processed oil and gas under a Production Sharing Agreement.
• Issues arising as to the specification of hydrocarbons under transportation and processing agreements.
• Interpretation of gas price review clauses in long-term gas supply agreements.
• The interpretation and consequences of a force majeure clause in gas supply agreement.

Examples of the range of cases that Koye is and has been instructed on in the energy and natural resources sector include:

• Tullow Ghana Limited v Vallourec Oil and Gas France SAS: Koye is instructed in High Court proceedings on behalf of Tullow Ghana Limited, an operator of an oil field offshore Ghana in respect of its claim against Vallourec, the manufacturer and supplier of tubular pipes for use in water injection wells in the oil field. The dispute arises out of leaks found in the tubular pipes and extensive workover works carried out on the wells as a result of the leak.
• An LCIA arbitration: Koye is instructed on behalf of an oil and gas multinational in respect of a dispute arising out of the proposed sale of its participating interest in an oil field to a third-party buyer, in particular, the effect and consequence of a pre-emption notice served by the multinational’s partner in the oil field.
• An LCIA arbitration: Koye acted as sole counsel on behalf of a West African oil exploration company in proceedings arising out of exploration operations offshore Cape Three Points, Ghana.
• An LCIA arbitration: Koye acted as sole counsel on behalf of a Gulf Arab State in a dispute with a contractor concerning a failed project to build a gas power plant in the state. The central issue in dispute between the State and the contractor turned on whether a terrorist insurrection in a region of the State provided a legal justification for the contractor’s failure to carry out any substantial works in performing the contract (for example, by constituting a force majeure event).
• An LCIA arbitration (with Gaurav Sharma): acting on behalf of a group of shareholders in respect of a dispute arising out of a joint venture created to build, own, and operate a coal power plant in a West African country, pursuant to a concession granted by the government of the country.
• Two London-seated LCIA arbitrations (with Robert Thomas QC and James Turner QC): Koye acted on behalf of a contractor; in disputes arising out of two contracts for the construction and installation of offshore pipelines connecting several oil fields offshore Turkmenistan.
• An ICC arbitration: Koye advised a contractor in respect of a dispute with an oil major arising out of an attack by terrorist insurgents on the oil major’s development area in a Southern African country. The dispute concerned the duty of care owed by the oil major vis-à-vis the contractor and its equipment.
• A SIAC arbitration: acting on behalf of one of the oil majors in a dispute arising out of the interruption of jet fuel supply to an airport as a result of a rupture to the sole pipeline transporting jet fuel from the only refinery in the country.
• Commercial Court proceedings concerning the operation of a trigger pricing mechanism in the context of a contract for the sale and purchase of ultra low sulphur diesel.
• Commercial Court proceedings concerning the repudiation of a contract for the sale and purchase of gasoil for delivery in Bissau, Guinea Bissau.
• An ad-hoc arbitration: acting on behalf of a large energy multinational in proceedings concerning the purported termination of a long-term crude oil supply agreement by a large West African energy conglomerate.

Koye acts in wide ranging commodities cases, his experience in-house within the litigation team of an energy multinational put him at the heart of commodities disputes and international trade. Koye also regularly provides assistance and advice in support of GAFTA and FOSFA arbitrations.

Koye's most notable current and recent cases include:

• A GAFTA arbitration: Koye is instructed on behalf of a Saudi Arabian entity said to have purchased a consignment of feed barley from a Dubai based entity. The dispute raises a question of whether the parties agreed to a GAFTA arbitration agreement.
• A GAFTA arbitration: Koye acted for a Mauritanian entity, in respect of a claim arising from the non-delivery of a cargo of Thai fragrant rice that was to be delivered CIF Nouakchott. The dispute raised a question of whether a contract was concluded between the parties in circumstances where the seller sought to renegotiate the price for the consignment which was said to be necessary in order to enable the seller to find any tonnage during the COVID-19 pandemic (in particular, the event of the spread of the omicron variant) to transport the rice to Nouakchott.
• HC Trading Malta Ltd v K.I. (International) Ltd [2022] EWHC 1387 (Comm) (with Jeremy Richmond QC): Koye acted for an Indian entity in respect of High Court proceedings to defend a claim brought by the sellers of non-coking coal of South African origin. The buyer sought to challenge the jurisdiction of the English courts in circumstances where the claim against the anchor defendant had no prospect of defending the claim against it, and the substance of the dispute was likely to be between the claimant and the foreign-domiciled defendant who was said to be a “necessary or proper party” to the claim against the anchor defendant.
• Commercial Court proceedings concerning the sale and purchase of copper concentrate of Zambian origin for delivery in China on CIF terms.
• Commercial Court proceedings arising out of the failure of the sellers of ultra-low sulphur diesel to deliver the contractual quantity to the Spanish buyers, under separate but connected agreements, on an into-tank basis across different locations in Spain.
• Commercial Court proceedings for damage to a cargo of galvalume steel coils.
• An LCIA arbitration: acted on behalf of the buyer of steel pellets in circumstances where the supply of the steel pellets by the sellers was disputed by reason of the political and economic instability in Venezuela. The case raised issues of contractual interpretation especially of force majeure provisions and the quantification of damages.
• A FOSFA arbitration: acting on behalf of the buyers of methyl ester in a dispute arising from the failure of the buyer to deliver the contractual quantity of methyl ester under two connected but separate contracts for delivery in Bulgaria.
• Several GAFTA and FOSFA arbitrations concerning the correct and proper construction of standard industry terms in the context of substantial delay in delivery of cargo purchased on FOB terms to be delivered ex Paranagua.
• Arbitration proceedings concerning the repudiation of a contract for the sale and purchase of gasoil for delivery CIF a port in West Africa

Aviation takes up a significant part of Koye’s practice. He acts primarily as sole counsel in aviation High Court proceedings and provides advice on aviation leasing disputes and MRO disputes. Koye also acts in and advises on aviation insurance disputes as well as inquests.

Koye’s recent and ongoing cases include:

• SATA Internacional-Azores Airline v Hi Fly Limited v Aircraft Engine Lease Finance Limited [2024] EWHC 2762 (Comm): Koye acted on behalf of SATA, the regional air carrier based in the autonomous region of the Azores, Portugal. The dispute concerned a claim for rectification of an aircraft lease agreement between SATA, the lessee of the aircraft, the aircraft’s previous owner and lessor, and the aircraft’s new owner and lessor.
• Turkish Technic Inc v SpiceJet Limited: Koye is instructed by Turkish Technic in a dispute arising out of component supply and repair agreements with SpiceJet and SpiceJet Technic, and a guarantee provided by SpiceJet. The dispute relates to the non-payment of outstanding invoices and the failure to redeliver emergency stock of components as delivered under the agreements.
• Inquests into the deaths arising from the helicopter crash at King Power Stadium On 27 October 2018 (2024): Koye was instructed in respect of the Coroner’s inquest into the crash of the former Leicester City Football Club owner, Vichai Srivaddhanaprabha in a helicopter crash after take-off from the pitch of the King Power Stadium in Leicester in October 2018.
• Fox Flight Holdings Limited v. 247 Aviation Limited (2024) – Koye was instructed in a dispute where the owner of an aircraft sought delivery up of its aircraft after the termination of the lease, in circumstances where the aircraft’s MRO had purported to exercise a lien over the aircraft for work that the lessee had requested.
• AON UK Ltd v Lamia Corp Srl and others [2022] EWHC 3323 (Comm) (with Richard Southern KC): Koye acted on behalf of 13 reinsurance underwriters in proceedings arising out of the 2016 Chapecoense plane crash that killed 71 of 77 passengers related to the Brazilian Chapecoense football club. Reinsurers sought, amongst other things, an anti-suit injunction restraining 49 defendants including the insurers, the aircraft operator, and several individuals (purportedly on behalf of some of the deceased passengers) from pursuing Reinsurers in proceedings that had been commenced in Miami, Florida.
• Gulf Air BSC (C) v One Inflight Ltd (and ors) [2019] (led by Yash Kulkarni QC): appearing on behalf of the Bahraini national carrier against one of its former senior employees and other defendants accused of perpetrating a multi-million-dollar fraud on Gulf Air. The case raised complex issues equitable and proprietary remedies, as well as the interplay between Bahraini law and their interplay with English law.
• Bahamasair Holdings Ltd v Messier Dowty Inc [2018] UKPC 25 (led by Tim Marland): appearing in the Privy Council for landing gear manufacturers in an appeal from the Bahamian Court of Appeal. The appeal arose in the context of a claim for damages by Bahamasair on the ground that the landing gear manufacturers failed in their duty to warn Bahamasair of certain alleged design defects in the shock strut apparatus of the Bombardier Dash-8 300 models. The appeal raised question of causation, and the standard of burden of proof.
• Nexus Flight Operations Services LLC v Residence Limited - Koye acted on behalf of an aircraft management company to obtain an anti-suit injunction against the Cayman Islands registered owners of an aircraft preventing it from taking further steps in respect of proceedings it commenced in Saudi Arabia in breach of an exclusive jurisdiction agreement to resolve all disputes in England.
• High Court proceedings on behalf of the owners of an aircraft involved in a crash while landing at Blackpool Airport in March 2015 suffering such extensive damage as to be determined a total loss. The owners commenced proceedings against the manufacturers of the aircraft’s engine hydraulic pump which it is alleged caused the accident.
• Acting on behalf of a PRM supplier in proceedings commenced by one of the main European low-cost airlines in respect of accident between the PRM supplier’s ambulift and the airline’s aircraft after the boarding of persons with reduced mobility. The case raises significant questions as to the extent to which a service provider employed by an airport can rely on exclusions contained in the Conditions of Use of the airport, and the extent to which airlines can recover sums paid out by way of EU 261 compensation from third parties.
• Air Namibia (Proprietary) Limited v BCI Aircraft Leasing Ireland C Limited (2016) - Acting on behalf aircraft lessors, BCI Leasing, in an $80 million aircraft redelivery dispute in the High Court arising from an alleged failure to properly redeliver two Airbus A340s aircraft. The case settled shortly before trial.

He has also advised on various aviation related matters, including:

• The termination of aircraft purchase agreements and aircraft financing agreements pursuant to which 30 aircraft were due to be purchased and financed.
• Issues arising out of the fraudulent sale of an executive jet, including issues relating to ownership of aircraft and avenues available for recovery of the sums paid under the fraudulent transaction.
• The sale of an aircraft by an MRO, pursuant to a contractual lien, in circumstances where the lessee of the aircraft had failed to make payments in respect of work done by the MRO.
• The ability of an aircraft lessor to ground and take possession of two aircraft from a defaulting lessee.
• A claim for commission arising under an agency agreement in the context of the sale of aircraft.
• Non-owned aircraft insurance policies in the context of large oil and gas contractors.

Koye acts on a broad range of arbitrations, including ICC, LCIA, LMAA, SIAC and ad hoc arbitrations. He also acts in support of trade (GAFTA and FOSFA) arbitrations. The subject matter of the disputes in arbitration that Koye acts in are wide-ranging across the commercial and international trade spectrum.

His recent and ongoing cases include:

• An LCIA arbitration: Koye is instructed on behalf of an oil and gas multinational in respect of a dispute arising out of the proposed sale of its participating interest in an oil field to a third-party buyer, in particular, the effect and consequence of a pre-emption notice served by the multinational’s partner in the oil field.
• An ad hoc arbitration: Koye is instructed on behalf of a West African oil and gas trading company in respect of an arbitration commenced by the purchaser of a cargo of liquified petroleum gas. The dispute raises questions as to the correct interpretation and effect of the NNPC standard terms for the sale and purchase of LPG, as incorporated into the sale contract.
• An ICC arbitration: Koye is instructed on behalf of a global cash and valuables management and logistics company in respect of an arbitration relating to the exercise of a lien of over two consignments of diamonds as a result of unpaid invoices.
• An LCIA arbitration: Koye acted as sole counsel on behalf of a West African oil exploration company in proceedings arising out of exploration operations offshore Cape Three Points, Ghana.
• An LCIA arbitration: Koye acted as sole counsel on behalf of a Gulf Arab State in a dispute with a contractor concerning a failed project to build a gas power plant in the state. The central issue in dispute between the State and the contractor turned on whether a terrorist insurrection in a region of the State provided a legal justification for the contractor’s failure to carry out any substantial works in performing the contract (for example, by constituting a force majeure event).
• An LCIA arbitration (with Gaurav Sharma): acting on behalf of a group of shareholders in respect of a dispute arising out of a joint venture created to build, own, and operate a coal power plant in a West African country, pursuant to a concession granted by the government of the country.
• A London-seated LCIA arbitration on behalf of a large insurance company based in one of the GCC states, against one of the world’s largest independent energy and commodities companies concerning a call on an on-demand guarantee.
• Two London-seated LCIA arbitrations, on behalf of a contractor, in disputes arising out of two contracts for the construction of offshore pipelines connecting several oil and fields in the Caspian Sea.
• Singapore-seated SIAC arbitration proceedings commenced on behalf of one of the oil majors, arising in the context of the interruption of jet fuel supply to an airport as a result of a rupture to the sole pipeline transporting jet fuel from the only refinery in the particular country. The case raises issues of force majeure and construction of the multinational’s supply and delivery obligations.
• London-seated LCIA proceedings concerning the disrupted supply of steel pellets by reason of the political and economic instability in Venezuela. The case raises issues of contractual interpretation especially of force majeure provisions and the quantification of damages.
• London-seated arbitration proceedings between a Dutch supplier of food products and an English food ingredients supplier in respect of the sale and purchase of several parcels of black pepper products. The proceedings concerned the alleged wrongful termination of the agreements and gave rise to issues of food business operators’ obligations to ensure the traceability of food products supplied under European law, and the quantification of damages.
• London-seated LCIA arbitration in respect of a dispute between maritime agents concerning settling of a running account, reimbursement of Suez Canal rebates, an alleged breach of best endeavours obligations, and the incorporation of local law requirements in a contract governed by English law.
• Two UNCITRAL arbitration proceedings for unpaid sums under a brand licensing agreement in the broader context of a sale and purchase agreement, and a claim for an indemnity arising out of the sale and purchase of the entirety of the retail business of an energy multi-national within a region in Europe.

Koye also has strong insurance practice, and has most recently acted in or advised on the following:

• The Solomon Trader [2024] EWHC 1813 (Comm) (with John Passmore KC): Koye acted on behalf of charterers’ P&I insurers in a dispute arising out of the well-publicised grounding the SOLOMON TRADER in the Solomon Islands in 2019. The dispute addressed the extent to which the P&I insurers could rely on the ‘pay to be paid’ clause in the P&I insurance policy as a defence to a claim by the vessel’s owners pursuant to Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Act 2010.
• An ad hoc arbitration: Koye was instructed in arbitration proceedings on behalf of the owners of an aircraft that was completely destroyed in an accident. The dispute arose in circumstances where the aircraft’s insurers refused to pay out the entirety of the Agreed Value of the aircraft notwithstanding the aircraft having been adjusted a total loss, because one of the title engines was undamaged by the accident as it was not on wing at the time of the accident.
• AON UK Ltd v Lamia Corp Srl and others [2022] EWHC 3323 (Comm) (with Richard Southern KC): Koye acted on behalf of 13 reinsurance underwriters in proceedings arising out of the 2016 Chapecoense plane crash that killed 71 of 77 passengers related to the Brazilian Chapecoense football club. Reinsurers sought, amongst other things, an anti-suit injunction restraining 49 defendants including the insurers, the aircraft operator, and several individuals who (purportedly on behalf of some of the deceased passengers) from pursuing Reinsurers in proceedings that had been commenced in Miami, Florida.
• A dispute between the underwriters of general aviation risks and the insured, concerning whether the underwriters are entitled to recover a payment of for a total loss made to the insured on account of damage to an aircraft that had been understood by the parties to be incapable of repair (and therefore a total loss), but which it later transpired could in fact be permanently repaired by the aircraft manufacturer.
• Several aspects of a non-owned aviation insurance policy in the context of an oil and gas contractors.
• The potential effects of the Insurance Act 2015 on insurance policies, in particular, the ability and consequence of contracting out of Parts 2 to 4 of the Act.
• The effect of an "excess clause" and an "escape clause" in the context of double insurance.
• The existence of an insurable interest in the context of a claim for material damage and business interruption.
• The scope of cover, and the applicability of the doctrines of waiver and estoppel in the context of an insurer’s conduct in respect of the availability of cover.
• The availability of consequential damages for an insurer’s breach of an insurance policy.
• The correct interpretation of an agreement as between insurers and the insured as to how recoveries made from a claim brought by the insured against the underlying tortfeasor, were to be divided as between the parties.